It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Eidolon23
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
U mad?
Originally posted by Eidolon23
I did star you. I actually did have some radunculous reply at the tips of my fingers, but thought the better of it. Oh well, so much for impulse control:
Originally posted by Eidolon23 We may as well all convert over to base six now, b/c it'll be mandatory under the reign of our saurian overlords (three dactyls). They'll keep us around for our thumbs.
Just remember. You asked for it, dude.
In a 14 digit number system would 7 be considered rational?
7 would be simply moved to the 5 value in place in the 10 digit number system within a 14 digit number system, but how about a 21 digit number system?
The Babylonians had a 12 digit number system, "Where does pi appear on your watch?" Hint convert 12 O clock to 10 O clock.
The ratio between a circumference of a circle to its diameter can be used to construct a number system where the ratio constant could be deemed rational. Simply square root the ratio where a rational number appears by assigning values accordingly to find a starting point for you invented number system, and work out from there in constructing your number system to complete the entire frame work.
Originally posted by Eidolon23
Here's what I wonder: does basing your entire system of mathematics on a figmentary number some Greek genius pulled out of thin air while loopy on (maybe) amanita strike you as a little odd? Especially when there are ways to calculate real-world geometries without resorting to Pi?
The point is that you could create a number system where the ratio between circumstance and diameter of a circle would be a rational number.
I can't express 7 as a fraction I can 14.
See these prime numbers 2 3 5 7 11 13 17... These are composite numbers 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14.
The argument over 3.14 being irrational is moot as 3.14 only pertains to a ten digit number system.
Arguing whether pi (3.14 unique to our 10 digit number system) is an irrational number or not is a pointless exercise.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
The point is that you could create a number system where the ratio between circumstance and diameter of a circle would be a rational number.
No, you cannot. You can use π itself as a unit (and count π, 2π, 3π, etc.) but notice we're still using integers to multiply π. And, as I pointed out earlier, you'd never get accurate measurements with that system, or accurate calculations based on measurement, either.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
I can't express 7 as a fraction I can 14.
Neither 7 nor 14 are fractions. They are integers. Both can be divided by any rational number you please to produce a rational fraction of themselves.
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
See these prime numbers 2 3 5 7 11 13 17... These are composite numbers 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14.
Sorry, I don't see the relevance of this statement.
the constant ratio between the circumference and its diameter of a circle... is merely an assigned value of pi within a 10 digit number system. It's only assigned that value within the ten digit number system because of our chosen number system.
Thus the argument of 3.14 not being a whole number is a matter of "circumstance" contained within a 10 digit number system rendering this debate moot.
all we are doing here finding a number system that fits π into a whole number, or assigning it a whole number value, and then you can construct an entire number system around it.
Originally posted by Moduli
A number being transcendental is a statement about the amount of information required to express the number, which has nothing to do with the particular way a number is represented. The trick of expressing pi in 'base pi' is just the tautology that
pi = ... + 0*pi^-2 + 0*pi^-1 + 0*pi^0 + pi + 0 * pi^2 + ...
which depends upon the definition of pi.
And regarding pi vs. tau, it's a stupid debate. You can define constants up to any multiplicative factor you want, they're just chosen for convenience. Pi is chosen like it is to make trig and geometry formulas easier to calculate with. There's no fundamental meaning to it. What's fundamental are the forms of the geometric and algebraic relationships.
What "clear?" THIS crap> "a circle to its radius is a number that cannot be expressed numerically" WTF is THAT
Originally posted by Astyanax
What "clear?" THIS crap> "a circle to its radius is a number that cannot be expressed numerically" WTF is THAT
I believe I wrote 'the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its radius is a number that cannot be expressed numerically'. Meaning, it has a fixed value that cannot be expressed in numerals.
Originally posted by AstyanaxThanks for the fourth-grade maths lesson. Unfortunately, matters like these cannot be worked out using elementary arithmetic. Come back when you've graduated from high school and we'll talk again. Bye now!